← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
How Genetic Genealogy Can SOLVE the Nancy Guthrie Case, with CeCe Moore, Plus Kouri Richins’ Upcoming Murder Trial
01:03:52
MK True Crime hosts Phil Holloway and Ashleigh Merchant join the show to discuss the latest developments in the Nancy Guthrie abduction including criticism regarding Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos’ damage control media spiral, questions surrounding whether Nancy could have been taken across the border into Mexico, the ways the FBI could be in contact with Mexican authorities, DNA expert CeCe Moore joins Phil and Ashleigh to discuss how law enforcement is utilizing genetic genealogy in the quest to identify a suspect in the Guthrie case, why a mixed sample containing both the suspect and Nancy’s DNA would be compelling evidence, the possibility that law enforcement could serve private DNA databases like Ancestry.com a search warrant, predictions on how the defense will argue the Kouri Richins case in her upcoming murder trial, and more. Phil Holloway: https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsq Ashleigh Merchant: https://www.criminaldefenseattorneysmarietta.com Cece Moore: https://www.cecemo...
Loading summary
Transcript153 lines
- [00:01]
A
Psycho Killer now playing only in theaters. From a twisted writer of 7 and 8 millimeter and the producers of Barbarian and a producer of weapons. Psycho Killer is coming for you.
- [00:16]
B
He's already here. We need to move. Meet your new nightmare.
- [00:20]
A
The party has just begun. Psycho Killer. Rated R under 17. Not admitted without parent. Now playing only in theaters.
- [00:30]
B
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time, 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 or 3 months. $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month. Plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month. When network is busy, see terms foreign.
- [01:05]
A
Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer. I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex cop. And most importantly today, I am back from Tucson, Arizona, where I was on the ground all last week for the Nancy Guthrie investigation. And so now I'm very pleased to tell you that we have a lot on our docket today. And we're going to start, of course, with Nancy Guthrie. And as of the taping of this show today, which is Thursday, February 19th, Nancy Guthrie, the 84 year old mother of TODAY show host Savannah Guthrie, is still missing. So the question becomes, could Nancy have been taken across the border to Mexico? We'll talk about that and we'll share with you what investigators are saying and what they are not saying. And then later in the show, we have DNA expert CeCe Moore. She joins us to break down the investigative genetic genealogy options investigators are now exploring. And in this case, I'm very pleased and happy to be joined by my co host today, my friend Ashley Merchant, criminal defense lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia. Ashley, I've got to talk to you now first out of the gate about Sheriff Nanos because there's, you know, he's been generating a lot of news. I think every time he says anything to anybody, it's it's picked apart whether it's a good thing to say, whether it's a bad thing to say, whether it's an appropriate thing to say. And one thing that sort of caught my eye, Ashley, is, you know, the sheriff posing this question. It's almost like he's sort of wondering and speculating. He stated to Fox 10, he said, you know, is there proof of death? So let's roll SOT2 and then we'll talk about that again. The sheriff's belief from day one that Nancy's still here. You have no proof, nobody does that she's not, that she's deceased. They ask me, do I have proof of life? I ask them, is there proof of death? I'm going to have that faith. And sometimes that faith, that hope is all we have. You know, Ashley, I put my ex cop hat on here for just a minute and I'm reminded of something that we were taught. And this is something that you, I'm sure as a criminal lawyer I know you know this too, right? A good investigator who's objective is going to, you know, objectively follow the truth and the evidence to wherever it may lead. And so I, I can certainly appreciate on a human level the sheriff wanting to hold out hope and to give some hope to the family and having faith that since we don't have any evidence that she's no longer alive, I just question that if that's the appropriate way for him to be wording these things. Because shouldn't he really just say, look, we're going to follow the evidence and right now we don't have any evidence that tells us whether she's deceased or whether she's alive. And it's almost like he's injecting himself emotionally into this case. That's just my take my opinion. I'm sure that people in the comments are going to give me their opinions about my opinion. But look, what do you have to say about this?
- [04:23]
B
Well, you know, what bothers me is the fact that he's so resistant to the FBI helping out. And we see this a lot in different investigations. You know, we see it. Let's just talk about, in the state of Georgia, when you have a local law enforcement working a case, do they want the GBI to come in and be involved? You know, there's always this, this pull, push and pull between the GBI and the GBI is just the Georgia version of the FBI. Every state has it. They just call it something different. Here in Florida, where I am now, it's called the fdle Florida Department of Law Enforcement. So everybody's got their version and these local sheriffs don't always want someone else coming in. That's always what surprises me. I mean, if you're looking for her and the goal should be the same. The goal should be to find Nancy Bring her home, get answers, make sure she's safe. If everybody has the same goal, why not let the FBI in? And this sheriff has a long history. He's got a long issue, and essentially it's known as a vendetta against the FBI. So why is he not letting the FBI in? And they are desperate. I mean, we're being told that they are desperate to take over this investigation, but the only way that they can actually take it over is if the Guthrie family actually asks for them to take it over. Because you know this from being in law enforcement and doing criminal law. For somebody like the FBI or a state head of investigation to take over a local investigation, someone has to invite them. Someone has to ask them to come in. And so a lot of folks don't understand that, and they think the FBI can just charge in, you know, like it is in tv, and just take it over. Unless there's a crime that's actually across state lines, they can't come in. Unless there's some federal jurisdiction that's invoked. They can't just march in and take over. So what is bothersome to me is the fact that they haven't asked for the FBI's help.
- [05:57]
C
And.
- [05:58]
B
And all of this stuff that we're talking about, all of these different leads, all of these different tips that are coming in, they need help.
- [06:04]
A
Well, I wonder if really the victim's family wanting. If they want the FBI. I'm not sure that even would be enough. I think they would have to have the sheriff. Now, I think the victim's family can obviously lean on the sheriff pretty heavily and let the sheriff know what their wishes are, in which case the sheriff might be willing to then ask the FBI to do it in this hypothetical. But look, we are told now, and I think this is being reported by the New York Post, there is a Sergeant Aaron Cross, who's president of the Pima County Deputies Organization, who they quote, is saying. They say this. This is the quote. It is a common belief in this agency that this case has become an ego case for Sheriff Nanos. Now, that's a hell of a thing to say about presumably your boss. If that Sergeant Aaron Cross being president of the Pima County Deputies Organization, is a deputy in that agency. If. If that's true, and if that's what's the broadly held belief within that sheriff's department, then you got to wonder what's driving this investigation? Is it in fact the ego of the head of the department, or is it maybe some objective quest to find the trut about what happened to Nancy.
- [07:25]
B
Right. And Phil, you know what I thought was really interesting, actually looking at why this sheriff has such a long standing feud with the FBI. So at the center of his apparent unwillingness to relinquish this control of the case to the FBI, he has a long running feud with the FBI that actually dates back to 2015, when he was first appointed chief of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. So that same year, the FBI was investigating the department for misuse of civil asset forfeiture funds. And what is that? That's essentially when the police stop someone on the side of the road and there's money found in the car, and there happens to be drugs, and they take all the money. The money may not have anything to do with the drugs, but they take it. Let's say when the government wants to take a house or something like that, that's all civil forfeiture. That's asset forfeiture, when the government takes people's property. And there's a long history of abuse with civil forfeiture. So this sheriff, Sheriff Nanos, apparently he was never charged, but the sheriff at the time was indicted. And they used this in his election. And so he actually lost the election. He was appointed in 2015, and then he lost the election in 2016. He's later become the sheriff again. But everybody in the area believes the reason that he lost that election was the FBI. So apparently there's a long seated distrust between the local Pima county sheriff and the FBI. And I would hope in a case like this that they would be able to get over that, get over that ego and really work towards the collective good here. But I can't help but wonder what that. What this real feud is, how it's hurting the case, because it's been, what, three weeks now?
- [08:55]
A
I mean, well, you know, look, it's. It's a shame that they can't play well together in the sandbox, because that's really what's required. I mean, I guess, hypothetically, if the FBI believed there was a federal crime that was committed, you know, they could just do their own thing, sort of parallel. But obviously they need to work together. That's what the family deserves. That's what Nancy Guthrie deserves, and that's what the public deserve, quite frankly, because we also deserve, I think, answers to what happened. And we deserve answers to this question about whether or not we can expect federal and state law enforcement to work together in this day and a day and age where things are so politicized that sometimes we don't see federal government and state agencies working together in many areas. But speaking of the FBI, it's been reported that the FBI has contacted Mexican law enforcement. Now, look, this is something that was a big deal in the last couple of days in the media and on social media. I think this originated with tmz. In fact, let's go ahead and run slot three, which is Harvey Levin telling that sources say Nancy could have been taken across the border. And then I want to talk about that. The search for Nancy Guthrie has gone international. We have learned the FBI has told federal, Mexican law enforcement to tell various police agencies to be on the lookout for Nancy and her kidnapper. Now, our law enforcement sources are telling us that it is possible they believe that Nancy was taken across the border, but they doubt if she is across the border, that it happened directly after the kidnapping. We're told that because we know now that the FBI checked cameras, border patrol cameras, and also other various electronic devices. We are asked not to be specific about that. And they have come up dry. There is nothing showing any movement across the border where they suspect Nancy Guthrie was in that car. Now, that said, we're told that she could have been taken at some point after the kidnapping, a day or so later or two days later. They just don't know. And obviously there is a way to get across the border undetected. But right now they have put the word out, and so far, no luck. You know, Ashley, what if I were to say, all right, I've got sources that tell me that Nancy could have been brought to Georgia, or Nancy could have been brought to Las Vegas, or she could have been taken to California, she could have been taken to Canada, New Mexico, you name it. She could have been taken to the Bahamas until you know where she is. I think you're just wildly speculating to say something like this because honestly, this seems like much ado about nothing. They're 60 miles or so, maybe 70 from the border of Mexico. They're also within 40, 50 miles, maybe less, to some Native American reservations out there. Maybe she was taken there. I think that you can say these things truthfully, like, maybe she's here, maybe she's there. And are you just trying to generate news? Are you just trying to manipulate the news cycle or to get clicks on X or something by saying your sources are telling you this? Because obviously she could have been taken to Mexico. And so this seems like, you know, like I said, much ado about nothing. I don't understand why that exactly is newsworthy. Am I missing Something you're not.
- [12:30]
B
You know, and I. And I try to. Try to think about how to equate this so that people understand how the government has to deal with these ransom notes. For example, it's kind of, you know, you've got a family who's desperate for answers. You've got a public who's desperate for answers. They love Savannah Guthrie. They love the family. They love the story. We all want a happy ending. And so these ransom notes are giving us little glimpses of hope. And it's sort of like if you went to the doctor and you have a diagnosis where, you know, it's an awful diagnosis, and you're saying, well, isn't there a chance that this would work? You know, isn't there a chance that this might work? That's sort of how we view these ransom notes. Isn't there a chance that it's true? Isn't there a chance if we pay this money, isn't there a chance that she's in Mexico? So it's very hard to ignore it, because you've got these ransom notes, and you're hoping and praying for this chance, even if it's small. And so what the government has to do is they have to try and figure out if that chance that this is true is worth it. And it sounds like what they've done is they've narrowed it down and they say these ones about the border crossings. There's enough truth there. There's enough that the FBI feels confident that she could have been taken across the border. And I think part of that stems from the fact that she's so close to the border. And while most people have said that they don't believe there's any cartel involvement, that doesn't mean that she wasn't ultimately taken across the bor. So there's enough little signals that are telling us this. And so the FBI is doing what they should do, and they're talking with Mexican law enforcement. They're working with Mexican law enforcement to try to make sure that they've covered all of their bases, and they can do that just because the Pima county sheriff is not inviting them to take over his local investigation. The FBI is doing what they can. They're picking them around the edges, and they're doing what they can. When someone crosses state borders, country borders, that invokes their jurisdiction. So they're trying to help in every way that they can. And. And I think we all really want one of these ransom notes to be true, because we want this proof of life. We want to see this happy ending. And so I think everyone's just really holding out hope for that at this point.
- [14:22]
A
So when I got to Tucson last week on Monday afternoon, the first person I went to find, like, literally before I checked into the hotel, got off the airplane and got in the car. And I went directly to Brian Enten. Okay. The journalist who's been all over this, and he posted on X yesterday on the, I guess February, February 18th, he says, quote, I've been told by several in law enforcement, Nancy Guthrie's disappearance does not show any signs of cartel involvement. But that doesn't mean whoever did this didn't take her to Mexico. So it's like you say, two things can be true. Just because it's possible that she's in Mexico doesn't necessarily mean it points to the cartel. And we've talked about this on this show. I feel like if you're like, if this is a cartel thing, right, they're going to want to be in and out of this kidnapping quickly. They want to get their ransom and move on. That's kind of unfortunately, that's how they do business. And they also provide proof of life when the cartel is involved in these kidnappings. And we don't see any of the earmarks. But since we're on the topic of Mexico, Fox News is now reporting that despite what others are saying, there is, you know, no evidence that Nancy Guthrie was taken across the border to Mexico. It's kind of like the sheriff saying there's no evidence that she's passed away, no evidence that she's alive. I mean, I just wonder when we see the media making statements like this, there's no evidence of this, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. Right. So are we just basically trying to keep the news cycle alive?
- [16:02]
B
Well, there's no evidence that it's not true. And also we are hearing that the state and local, the federal and the local agencies aren't really talking to each other. So when you see one of these reports, maybe from Fox, maybe they're talking to the local folks. And then, you know, we have a report from the New York Times. Maybe they're talking to the FBI. And so the New York Times is actually reporting that there was some purchase that happened. The authorities are investigating her disappearance, and they said that they've reached out to Mexican officials regarding a purchase thought to be connected to the case. We don't know what this purchase is, but apparently they think that it's got something to do with the Mexican state of Sonora, which is the border with Arizona, and it hasn't been ruled out. So there's still some type of an investigation. We don't know what this purchase is, but it's being investigated. So maybe the Times is talking to the FBI and they're really investigating this Mexico connection. And you know, Fox is talking more with the local folks and they're saying there's no Mexico investigation. This is a perfect example, Phil, of what happens when you've got two agencies that are not working together. Psoriatic Arthritis Symptoms can be unpredictable I
- [17:06]
A
had joint pain and I couldn't move like I used to. I needed relief.
- [17:11]
B
I got Cosentix.
- [17:13]
A
It helped me move better.
- [17:15]
C
Cosentyx Secukenumab is prescribed for people 2
- [17:19]
B
years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx. Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal or viral infections.
- [17:33]
A
Some were fatal.
- [17:34]
B
Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweatshirts, chills, muscle aches or cough had a vaccine or plan to, or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur.
- [17:47]
A
Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.com. Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentyx.
- [18:01]
B
Underwear drawers are like the Wild west of wardrobes. You never know what pair you're going to pull out or what shape it's in. It's time to upgrade your underwear drawer with the buttery, soft comfort of Meundies. Meundies signature fabric is as soft as a warm hug from your favorite sweater. Plus, it's breathable and ugh, so comfy, making it ideal for all day wear. Get 20% off your first order plus free shipping@meundies.com sxm Enter promo code sxm that's meundies.com sxm Code sxm Not quite like yourself, life constantly bombards us with silent threats, processed foods, artificial light, non stop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy, and weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body's broken, it's that it might be missing the right inputs. That's why I want to tell you about Armor of Colostrum. It's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body vitality. Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health, and even performance and recovery, which is why colostrum has long been valued by some elite athletes as well. If you are looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, consider Armra and they have a special deal for you now. Go to armra.commegan or enter Megan when you check out to get get 30 off your first subscription order. That's armra.commegan
- [19:34]
A
all right, well, so now we've got the a new theory that's out there. I don't know if you've caught this one. So there's some question about and I think we could probably show a picture of the bad guy on the porch there with his fist sort of pointed at the camera. There's some the idea is that the sheriff is speculating that there may be a pinky ring on the pinky of this hand. The the quote from the sheriff, and this is according to the Daily Mail. I look at the same photo you look at and I get it, I see it, he told NBC News, referring to the mysterious figure seen in the clip. I'm going to give it to my team, they'll analyze it and we'll see. Maybe it is. So you know, I see that picture, you see that picture. Folks at home can see that picture. Even if you're listening on podcast, you've seen the picture and you can make up your mind for yourself. I personally say, well, you know what, what does it look like to me? Well, you know, it looks a lot like the other pieces of that crinkled up glove where it could just be a sharp corner. Well, a, you know, a corner of maybe a fold or something. I don't necessarily see a pinky ring. I can't tell you that there's not one. But I feel like when we're fly specking, so to speak, every little piece of these things, it's almost like there's just this thirst for any little piece of information, whether it's accurate or not, to kind of advance the story.
- [21:07]
B
Yeah, we are. And I mean, it looks like a ring, but you're right, it could not be a ring. We just don't know. So now we're trying to narrow the scope and say people with pinky rings, but we don't even know if that's true. And you know, we're hearing there's no vehicle leads. That's one of the big things that you hear about when you have an abduction you know, a kidnapping case. What's the vehicle? What's the getaway car? But there's. The public hasn't been asked to be on the lookout for any type of car, which tells us that they don't even know what type of car they're looking out for. But one of the things I thought was interesting, Phil, is the reward. You know, this reward has continued to rise. Now it's up to $200,000. You know, I'm a little surprised it's only $200,000, quite honestly. I would think that it would be a lot higher at this point. But 200,000 is a large donation. It's climbed to that. Apparently, an anonymous donor contributed $100,000 to the county tip line, which, you know, I think that is amazing that someone was willing to do that. I hope that that promotes people to come forward. But we're also getting reports that there was a SWAT raid that targets. But they have. There were local SWAT raids, but they have no link to her or her abduction. So why are these people being SWAT rated? I mean, you know, how are they being targeted? What's happening? Why are the police doing this? These are big sweeps that are happening, and folks, their homes are being raided by the SWAT in Arizona, and they've got nothing to do with her abduction, which is kind of scary. I mean, if a citizen is just minding their own business, and we all want Nancy Guthrie found, but the police doing these massive SWAT raids is a little bit disturbing.
- [22:33]
A
Well, you know, honestly, if SWAT was serving a search warrant, what I need to see to fully understand it and evaluate it, I need to see the affidavit that would support that SWOT rate or the search warrant. And so we talked about this before. We'll talk about it, I'm sure, more in this show. But how you get a search warrant is you have to present evidence to a judge, usually in the form of an affidavit. And your affidavit has to swear under oath that at the place or house or vehicle, whatever the place is, that they're going to search, there has to be probable cause to believe that there is fruits of a crime or evidence of a crime, instrumentalities of a crime located at that place or within that, in this case, a vehicle. And so there's got to be an affidavit that sets out what that probable cause is. So I would like to know why the SWAT teams believe that there were fruits or instrumentalities or evidence of a crime related to Nancy Guthrie as it pertains to Those SWAT raids that have, in one case, taken people apparently, you know, looked like somebody was in handcuffs, and then they were later released. But that's what we really need to know. But look, our intrepid producer Natasha, asks, I think, a very good question. You were talking about the reward, Ashley. The question that Natasha raises is, why are we not in the millions? Right. Because this case has generated, obviously, worldwide interest, and donations, to be fair, are pouring in. But I'm just curious as to why we don't have more of a reward. Because if we're getting these ransom demands for, you know, we want, you know, 6 million in Bitcoin, maybe we can convince somebody to do this the right way. And by this, I mean come forward and do it the honorable way and say, look, I know what happened, or I have some information that can lead to tell you what happened, you know, and we're seeking the reward. And so I think that's the better way to do it. So the question is, and I don't. It may be a rhetorical question, will this reward get bigger? And if so, when?
- [24:49]
B
Right. Well, that actually leads me to something that we talked about on Tuesday. I talked with Dave about it. We had a guest on Steve Fisher, who's actually doing the private investigation in the David case. And one of the things we talked about was how families can use private investigators to get information and how sometimes they can get information that law enforcement can't. And so when I see this reward and I see this money being poured in, I can't help but wonder why the Guthrie family, maybe they do. Maybe we just don't know it yet, and they're being very sly about it. But why they haven't engaged some private type of assistance? Because as you and I know from doing our own investigation over the years, we get different information than law enforcement. There are a lot of individuals out there, especially near the border in Arizona, that may not be willing to talk to law enforcement, may not want this $200,000 because they don't want to engage in law enforcement. But perhaps if there was a private investigator, perhaps if there was someone not associated with law enforcement but still doing legal investigation, they might be able to get somewhere. So I hope that that's ongoing and we haven't heard any reports, but I really feel like there could be a parallel investigation going on at the same time, and that might be a really good use of resources. If the family does have resources, you know, more than just this reward or even doing a private reward where the information goes to the family. And, you know, especially if the two police departments, the police department and the FBI, aren't really working together, if the family's not really happy with what's happening, maybe they could employ someone, a private investigator to help find some answers and get some link leads at this point.
- [26:16]
A
So let me reference some. Some TMZ reporting here. It says an Arizona man named Luke Daly was the subject of two search warrants issued and served Friday in relation to the Guthrie case, According to his attorney, Chris Celeppi. For context, people online were accusing Luke of being a suspect. Luke's attorney tells tmz, Luke and his mother were both detained by law enforcement while the search warrants were being executed. They were not arrested, and Luke has no link whatsoever to Nancy, and he has no info related to her, her kidnapping. So the attorney goes on to say, like the entire Tucson community, both Mr. Daly and his mother are hopeful that Nancy will be returned to her family unharmed. But that raises the question, like, if that's true and they have no relation, again, we have to see the affidavit for this search warrant. But, you know, do they have some kind of grounds to sue? Because not only have they been, you know, either handcuffed or otherwise detained, and maybe they weren't under arrest, but they certainly were not free to leave. Right. And so the question is, do they have some grounds for a lawsuit? And if so, what would that look like? And now that people are, you know, perhaps falsely, I guess, assuming or accusing them of being connected to this case, does that even strengthen the possibility that they may have a legal claim, actually?
- [27:40]
B
Well, that's a really good question. And so it's really hard to sue the government. I mean, we've got, you know, in our Constitution, we say that you can't sue the government, essentially. And so for the government to allow itself to be sued, they have to permit it. They have to have some type of a law that says we're allowing ourselves to be sued. And so in these types of situations where a search warrant is issued, it actually can be extremely invasive on the person. I mean, the police regularly rip down doors. They're not gentle. They don't pack it up like a nice mover would. They're ripping stuff out. They're throwing stuff. I mean, they are causing damage. And sometimes it's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the amount of dam depending on the law enforcement agents and what they're doing, if they're ripping out, you know, false doors, things like that, which. Which seem crazy, but it happens. It happens. All the time. So there actually could be damages. And unfortunately, you don't get money back for any of those. The only time that they could actually sue or have some type of potential lawsuit is if the law enforcement officer lied in the warrant. If they lied to the magistrate, then they could potentially sue. They'd have to show malice, they'd have to show that it was an actual lie and they knew it. What we normally see is law enforcement officers spitting out some type of probable cause. The probable cause is not questioned by a competent defense attorney. It's not cross examined. Nobody asks questions, nobody really looks at it. And what happens? These magistrates, they're sitting there, they're the overnight shift officers, know which magistrates to go to, they know which ones will rubber stamp it. And they don't really dig. They don't ask a whole lot of questions. They say, oh, well, law enforcement says there's probable cause. I'm just going to rubber stamp it and give you this search warrant. And so it's an unfortunate reality because we don't as a society, our government wants to grant search warrants. They want to get answers. They want to find people. That's what we all want. And they tend to forget about what happens to the person on the other side of it. This innocent man and his mother who are standing in their yard, potentially in their pajamas, while their house is ripped up by law enforcement. Nobody really cares about that because it's for the greater good. They think, oh, well, we're trying to search for evidence and they must have had probable cause. So it really is an unfortunate situation. I do feel bad for them and I just. I don't think that they're going to get any compensation for it whatsoever.
- [29:43]
A
All right, well, obviously, you know, there's more to this Guthrie case that we'll be following as we move through the next days and weeks here at MK True Crime. So stick with us. We want to see this case solved as much as everybody does. But coming up next, we're going to have genealogy expert Cece Moore joining us to talk about investigative genetic genealogy. Stay tuned.
- [30:13]
B
Based on a New York Times best thriller comes 56 Days, starring Dove Cameron.
- [30:19]
C
A story of love. Oh, sorry.
- [30:22]
A
I'm Oliver.
- [30:23]
C
I'm Ciara.
- [30:24]
A
Lies.
- [30:24]
B
So do you like secrets?
- [30:26]
C
No, I like reveals, seduction.
- [30:30]
B
It's like they were obsessed with each other. And murder.
- [30:33]
A
We got here. Body in a bathtub.
- [30:36]
B
56 days is now streaming on Prime Video. I'm gonna get you.
- [30:41]
A
Not if I get you first. On March 6th. My name is Frankenstein.
- [30:49]
C
Academy Award nominee Jessie Buckley.
- [30:51]
A
What did you want with a dead girl?
- [30:53]
B
And Academy Award winner Christian Bale.
- [30:57]
A
I'm the same born from the dead. I want the same thing everyone else wants. A bride.
- [31:08]
B
The Bride Brady Darr only in theaters
- [31:10]
A
March 6 under 1790 minute without ferret.
- [31:13]
B
Relief Factor loves hearing from pain free customers and hopes they can help you next. One user of Relief Factor named Kim wrote to them to say, quote, before trying Relief Factor, I struggled just to make it through my workday. I'd collapse on the couch at night, aching everywhere. Within a few weeks of starting Relief Factor, the daily pain began to fade. Now I'm keeping up at work and I still have energy left for my family. There are many stories just like this of parents having more love to give but less strength to share. Relief Factor doesn't just ease pain, it can restore evenings laughter and the simple joy of being present. If you want to feel the difference, like Kim with back pain, knee issues or stiffness that is slowing you down, Relief Factor could give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug free and targets the inflammation that causes pain. In order to move better, feel better and actually enjoy life again, try the three week quick start for just $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. Let's see if you could be next in getting out of pain. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos confirmed this week that investigators are exploring genetic genealogy options to identify possible DNA matches in the Nancy Guthrie case. Here is Sheriff nanos speaking to Fox 5 Phoenix.
- [32:32]
A
What have we learned now about the glove? The DNA profile on that glove came back, I think either late last night or early this morning. The DNA came back. It was submitted into codis and we have no hits in codis. I mean this was, was key piece of evidence. A lot of people, you know, the public waiting for that answer. Now what's next? Do you go the genetic genealogy route? Well, absolutely, you do that, but we have other DNA evidence from the scene that is more critical to me than something found two miles away. All of that, though, will still be submitted for further analysis.
- [33:08]
B
And joining us now to shed light on this very interesting topic is DNA expert Cece Moore. Welcome, Cece, thanks for joining us.
- [33:15]
A
Us.
- [33:15]
C
Thanks for having me.
- [33:16]
B
All right, so first, can you briefly explain what investigative genealogy is genetic, you know, tell us about this field. Explain it to us.
- [33:25]
C
Genetic genealogy has been around for a couple of decades and it is using someone's DNA in combination with the paper trailer. The Documentary research to learn more about someone's family tree and family history.
- [33:40]
B
Okay, and then. Yeah, no, keep going.
- [33:43]
C
I was gonna say then we, I kind of transitioned and a few of us to helping people find their biological parents. So people of unknown parentage, adoptees, donor conceived people who took a DNA test and were surprised to find their father was not their biological father. And those are really the techniques that laid the foundation for the next step, which is investigative genetic genealogy. That is when we are applying these techniques to law enforcement cases, helping them identify violent criminals that leave their DNA behind at crime scenes. And also Jane and John does, people who die without their identification.
- [34:21]
A
You know, we saw this investigative genetic genealogy. I think the first time really in the national spotlight was in the Coburger case. Now that of course was done by Othram Labs. And please correct me if I'm wrong, I think maybe Othram is a little bit different from what the sheriff is doing here because I think Othram looks at, you know, like partial or fragments of DNA and then uses their own in house process to build a complete profile. But presumably here inside Nancy Guthrie's house and even maybe on those gloves, presumably there's a complete DNA profile. Am I getting that right?
- [35:00]
C
Well, what they do really isn't that different. It's just that all of the labs that perform the analysis to create that SNP profile, that single nucleotide polymorphism, go about it in a slightly different way. They might look at a little bit different genetic markers and a different number of genetic markers. At Parabon, we look at 850,000 genetic markers across the genome and we choose whichever platform we think is best for that DNA sample. So sometimes we use microarray, which is the same technology that's used if you test it, say ancestry DNA, sometimes we use whole genome sequencing and then our scientists extract out those SNPs, those genetic markers that we need to create the genetic genealogy profile. And Othram did create that profile in the Coburger case, but it was the FBI genetic genealogy team that then took that and identified him. And we might see that same thing here where DNA Labs International is currently creating that SNP profile. Or maybe they've already finished creating it and they have their own in house genetic genealogy team. But it's unknown at this point if they will be performing that or if it will be turned over to the FBI genetic genealogy team to go ahead and try to identify that DNA contributor.
- [36:22]
B
So does it actually work?
- [36:23]
A
Actually? I'm sorry.
- [36:24]
B
Oh, yeah, no, I'm just, I'M fascinated. And how does it actually work, this matching? Because we understand, and we've talked a lot about how DNA matching, you know, works with blood, semen, saliva, touch DNA. How does the process actually work with this type of DNA?
- [36:37]
C
Well, usually in these very short live interviews, I have to just say something like, we reverse engineer the identity of the unknown suspect based on who he's sharing DNA with in the these small databases we're allowed to use. But there's a much longer explanation, much more technical explanation. I think I might have a little bit more time here to explain that. What we're doing is that SNP profile, once it's created by the lab and the scientists work on what we call the bioinformatics to make sure that's a viable file to upload. That means they might be dealing with degradation, degradation, contamination, and mixtures, which is relevant in this case because the sheriff says it's a mixture. You have to have that deconvoluted, which means you're going to extract out the extraneous DNA to focus on that person of interest DNA. Now, if that's Nancy's DNA, it makes it an especially compelling DNA sample, right? If they are mixed. And we see that a lot with suspects and victims, that there is mixed blood or mixed other type of biological material. So that step gets missed a lot. Those bioinformatic scientists are super important in order to repair sometimes the issues with that sample. So it can be uploaded to the three databases we're allowed to work in, which are GEDmatch, Family Tree DNA and the new nonprofit DNA justice that I co founded. Those are the only ones we're allowed to work in. Despite the fact There are over 50 million people who've taken direct consumer DNA tests at the big company. They have barred law enforcement from using their databases. So there's a huge misconception that we are using Ancestry DNA and 23andMe for law enforcement cases, but we are not. And so we are only working with less than 2 million profiles. So to get back to explaining it, once that file is uploaded into, say, GEDmatch, it's compared against all the people in that database that have checked that little box that says, you can compare me against violent criminals. And that's maybe only about a third of the database, maybe a little bit more than that. So say 700,000. And then at Family Tree DNA, there's about a million or so that it's compared against. They're looking for long stretches of identical DNA, but it might only be 1% of shared DNA with that unknown suspect and this person in the database. But that's still significant to us because that might be a third cousin, which means they share great great grandparents. So we might get lucky and get a closer match. We really like to have second cousins. That means they share great grandparents. But most the time we're working with these very distant relationships. Third, fourth, fifth, sixth cousins and beyond. The only reason two people would share what we consider significant DNA is if they have a common ancestor in their family tree. So the genealogist's job is to identify that common ancestor, which branch of their tree is relevant to our research. So we're looking for patterns, commonalities, overlaps, triangulations. A lot of people think it's just one match. It's not. There are hundreds or thousands of matches for just about everyone who uploads their DNA in there. We'll often work with the top dozen, two, three dozen matches in there. And so we're looking for that one person or immediate family that's related to all of those top matches. It could be through their mother's side, through their father's side. If we can connect to both, we can narrow it down to one immediate family and eliminate the vast majority of the population from being under suspicion. So even if we can't immediately identify that person of interest, we can tell them who it is not. And I think that's something that's missed a lot about investigative genetic genealogy.
- [40:25]
A
So it sounds to me then, based on what you've just said, if this individual, or specifically maybe some relative of theirs, distant as they may be, unless that relative or the ancestor is in some of these databases that law enforcement does have access to, then we're basically back at square one. In other words, if ancestry is saying, look, okay, you can't get into our database without a court order. And I think a court order is going to be very hard to get here because essentially you're guessing, guessing, and you've got to have evidence to get, you know, probable cause to get a warrant for something, unless that. Unless this individual or the relative is in one of these sort of more limited databases, the IgG might also wind up at square one, just like the CODIS. Is that correct?
- [41:18]
C
There's always going to be matches. It just might be that they're very distant, so it will take longer, but. But nobody's going to have zero matches there. So there's always something to work with. The other good news is that the genetic genealogy databases are dynamic. People, new people upload every single day. And that can change the status of the case dramatically. If people have taken a test at one of the big databases, they can certainly download their raw data, upload to GEDmatch and opt in to help. So the more people that do that, the quicker a case status can change if you're stuck. So it's not really quite the same, because if you don't have a hidden codis, that's the end of it, unless your state allows familial searching. And even with familial searching in those law enforcement databases, you're only looking for immediate relatives. So it's basically a yes or no question there.
- [42:10]
A
Right? So can you tell us if we know what is the nature of the DNA samples that were retrieved from inside Nancy Guthrie's house? Also speak to the glove? Are we talking about touch DNA? Are we talking about, like, skin cells? Are we talking about blood or some other type of genetic material?
- [42:31]
C
Do you know, I wish we knew what was found inside the house. I can only speculate based on the fact he said it was a mixture. I have seen lots of mixtures on cases I've worked, especially if somebody fights back. So we know Nancy was injured because there's blood on the front porch. So if she did fight back and she injured him, there's a good potential that there's a mixed blood sample, which would really be the best possibility here, because a mixed blood sample is going to almost certainly mean that that DNA does belong to the suspect. If it is a mixed, say, transfer DNA or what's commonly known as touch DNA, then you have to use a lot more caution about what that could potentially mean. As far as the glove, I would certainly think it's going to be a lot of skin cells, potentially sweat. That should be a very good source of DNA. It's just a question of whether it is really relevant to the case.
- [43:26]
A
And presumably we could be looking at hairs or fibers or anything that contains, you know, the suspect's genetic material. But there's also other people. We know other people were in her house. There's people that come and go in my house, I'm sure in yours and Ashley's as well. And so you may have dozens or maybe hundreds of of DNA profiles that you find in somebody's house. It's such a daunting task to go through and eliminate those that you can, you know, explain that are there for, you know, an innocent reason. Right?
- [43:57]
C
Yeah, it's a terrific point. And it is, again, something that we have encountered a lot in our Work. It is not uncommon that we are sent a sample to analyze. We do all the work, spend many hours sometimes identifying this person, and it ends up being somebody who was at that house for a different reason. We've seen quite a few where it was even blood and it ended up being somebody that lived in the home years earlier. Fortunately, Nancy's lived there a long time, so that probably isn't an issue. But because she lives alone, the family may not know everyone who's been in and out of that home. And so that is always a concern and why we can't jump to conclusions about who the suspect actually is unless they have a very compelling sample.
- [44:42]
B
So how do they this type of DNA, is it put in the database similar to the other types of DNA that were talked about, this genetic DNA, is it similar to how they would take a touch DNA or a swab? You know, when law enforcement takes a swab and enters into the system, is it a similar process that you get that DNA chain and then you're comparing it to known genetic, you know, relatives in the family tree?
- [45:05]
C
Well, when it's a forensic sample, they first have to extract it. And that's something that this lab that is doing the work on this case is really good at. DNA Labs International is kind of a one stop shop. They have extracted the DNA in some of my cases because that's not something Parabon does. They can do that right there in that lab and then split that sample and part of it can go to create that STR profile, which by the way, they are accredited to do that. Have been doing it since 2012 for Pima County. They've had a contract for that for years. There's some confusion, I think, about that, or misinformation. It's not at all unusual that law enforcement will use a private lab to create that profile for codis. And that's because our public labs, our government labs can be very backed up sometimes. If you pay to get that done, you can get it done more quickly. Now, I'm not saying they wouldn't have rushed this sample either way, but I understand that he's very comfortable working with them. They've had a lot of success together. And so they would go ahead and extract it from whatever that piece of evidence is, whatever that sample is, and then start the process to create that CODIS profile. And then probably in parallel they started creating that SNP profile because that's what was done so successfully in that Coburger case, where they didn't wait till they didn't get the hit and codis, it looks like they started creating that. That SNP profile just in anticipation, in case they didn't.
- [46:34]
A
You know, there's a. There's so many people, you know, that are already in codis. You know, that's the government system. But, you know, as I understand it, it's not just people who've been convicted or charged with crimes. I mean, there's other ways to get into codis. So, I mean, I'm thinking that the likelihood that, you know, there's not some relative that you could find in codis, to me, it just kind of blows my mind that. That even CODIS might not be sufficient.
- [47:02]
C
Yeah, well, some of the states do not allow familial searching. Unfortunately, familial searching can be a very powerful tool. California, where IM allows it and has solved some very big cases with it. So I'm not sure about Arizona. I've been meaning to look it up, but I've been so busy, I haven't had a chance. It's certainly something they should try if they are legally allowed to do that. That. And then, you know, there's three different searches. Right. So you're looking for that exact person in codis. If you're allowed to do familial, you're looking for an immediate family member. And if those fail, you brought in the search, and you're looking at distant relatives most of the time in investigative genetic genealogy.
- [47:39]
B
What kind of time?
- [47:40]
A
If you were the sheriff, before we let you go, if you were the sheriff with respect to DNA, or if you were the FBI, whoever, the. Whoever's in charge of the FBI's investigation. Investigation. What would your advice be to them as far as using DNA now to try to get to some resolution of this case?
- [47:57]
C
I think they know what they're doing. The FBI has been using investigative genetic genealogy very successfully ever since the Golden State Killer case. So almost eight years, and they're on top of it. They've trained 200 agents to do genetic genealogy. So if DNA Labs International needs extra resources on the case, if they're the ones doing the genetic genealogy, they can put as many FBI agents on it, really, as needed. And so I think, you know, they are moving in the right direction. Investigative genetic genealogy will definitely identify the contributor of that DNA, that is, hopefully Nancy's kidnapper. It's really just a matter of time. It will happen. If it doesn't happen another way first.
- [48:38]
B
All right, so, cece, before we let you go, can you tell me what you think a warrant might look like
- [48:43]
C
in this case, I know that the FBI has been considering serving a warrant on those big databases, ancestry DNA and 23 me for a while. For instance, if Charlie Kirk's killer had not been identified so quickly, or if the attempted assassination of President Trump had not been quickly identified, they would have done it. Then will this be the case? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. And if they do, their argument actually is a little bit different. If you first upload to GEDmatch, you can see where the source of those matches. So if somebody tested ancestry DNA, they download their data and upload it to GEDmatch and opt into law enforcement matching. We can see then that there are people who share DNA with that unknown suspect in ancestry because that was the source of that DNA file. So a former lawyer at the FBI has told me about their approach on this and what it would be. It's really not a fishing expedition when you know for a fact there are matches in their database, which you can easily learn through uploading to GEDmatch.
- [49:53]
A
So I guess. So I guess the way this works then, because I know that to get a search warranty you have to have probable cause, which means there's enough evidence that there's probably located wherever you want to search, fruits or instrumentalities of a crime or evidence, you know, related to the perpetrator of a crime. So. So if they're using that as the argument, I think it might actually fly to get that search warrant.
- [50:17]
C
I think it'll be a knockdown, drag out, fight because these companies have very deep pockets. But I think it very well may be successful too. And so maybe those companies should be forward thinking and offer an opt in, opt out, like GEDmatch does, because they definitely should. I think that would satisfy law enforcement and the vast majority of the public seem to believe that they're already using those databases. I get emails all the time from people who say, I want to help you solve cases. I've tested at Ancestry DNA and I have to write back and say, sorry, that doesn't help unless you get into one of the databases we can access.
- [50:53]
B
Fascinating.
- [50:54]
C
Yeah. So I think it might happen. We'll see. I think it definitely could.
- [50:58]
B
Thank you so much for joining us, cece. That was really interesting. It's a fascinating area. Next up, we've got your questions on the Corey Richens case and our closing arguments. Stay tuned for, you know, Pure Talk's favorite. Based on a New York Times best thriller comes 56 Days, starring Dove Cameron,
- [51:19]
C
a story of love.
- [51:20]
B
Oh, sorry.
- [51:21]
A
I'm Oliver.
- [51:22]
C
I'm Ciara.
- [51:23]
A
Lies.
- [51:24]
B
So do you like secrets?
- [51:26]
C
No, I like reveals.
- [51:29]
B
Seduction. It's like they were obsessed with each other. And murder.
- [51:32]
C
What do you got here?
- [51:34]
A
Body in the bathtub.
- [51:35]
B
56 days is now streaming on Prime Video. I'm gonna get you.
- [51:40]
A
Not if I get you first. On March 6, my name is Frankenstein.
- [51:48]
C
Academy Award nominee Jessie Buckley.
- [51:51]
A
What did you want with a dead girl?
- [51:53]
B
And Academy Award winner Christian Bale.
- [51:56]
A
I'm the same.
- [51:57]
C
Born from the dead.
- [52:00]
A
I want the same thing everyone else wants. A bride.
- [52:07]
B
The Bride.
- [52:08]
A
Rated R only in theaters March 6th. Under 1790 minute without parent holiday.
- [52:13]
B
It's President's Day because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple presidents. Just a little Jackson and Lincoln to be exact. For just 25 bucks a month, Pure Talk gives you unlimited talk text and plenty of data. Now compare that to Big Wireless. They'd rather celebrate the Benjamins. Mr. Franklin, to be exact. And his day. So they can charge your family hundreds every month. That's not right. You deserve better. PureTalk is an American wireless company who supports our veterans and invests in a US Only customer service team. So when you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. PureTalk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just 25 bucks a month for talk text and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. What are you waiting for? Just dial £250 and say keyword Megyn Kelly and you will get 50% off your first month. Again, dial £250 and then say Megyn Kelly to make the switch to Peer talk.
- [53:18]
A
Okay. Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co host host Ashley Merchant. We'll get to our closing arguments in just a moment, but first we have a question from Donna. Donna says hi. I love the show. The Corey Richards trial is coming up soon and so will MK True Crime be covering it? And what are your predictions on what the defense will argue about and what happened to Corey's husband, Eric? Thank you. Well, that's an excellent question, Donna, and we appreciate it. We always appreciate the questions from our audience members. And what I can tell you, I'm gonna let Ashley answer that question. But what I can tell you is that we will be covering it extensively here on MK True Crime. So you can stay right here for all the Corey Richards case that you need. Ashley, what's the answer to Donna's question?
- [54:09]
B
I would bet anything that she is going to claim that her husband was a drug addict or he was using drugs. Because if he was overdosed on fentanyl, she's gonna have to claim that he was using it and it was an accidental overdose. That's going to be her best defense. And so I would put money that that's going to be her defense.
- [54:25]
A
You know, we've. We've talked about this a little bit before on this show, I think, you and I, when we had Vinnie Politin from Court TV with us, and, you know, there was some question about, you know, each side, you know, pointing the finger at the other side in, let's just say, ways of maybe tampering with witnesses or maybe manufacturing, in the case of Corey Richards, maybe manufacturing a. And so before I get to that, though, we have a slot here which is Corey claiming her innocence, saying, this means war, and she's really ready to get to trial. Let's run slot 4.
- [55:05]
C
To be able to speak out for the first time is terrifying and much needed.
- [55:09]
A
The world has yet to hear who
- [55:11]
B
I really am, what I've really done, or what I really didn't do.
- [55:14]
A
What I've really done is protect Eric at all cost. What I really didn't do, just burn up my husband.
- [55:23]
B
I could not and would not ever do that to Eric or anyone for that matter.
- [55:28]
A
I'm anxious to get trial, and I'm
- [55:31]
B
ready to get this one heck of a fight.
- [55:34]
C
You took an innocent mom away from
- [55:35]
B
her babies, and this means war.
- [55:41]
A
So, you know, it's like when a dog is chasing a car. It's like, okay, what are you going to do when you catch that car? Right. What's the dog going to do with it? You know, wanting your trial to come is, you know, I guess it's understandable. But look, it's also the kind of thing that, you know, be careful what you ask for. Right. Because she's going to get her trial and we don't know how it's going to go for her. Actually, before we get to. We have some video of Vinnie Politon telling us about the Walk the Dog lair, which is the idea that. That she may be manufacturing her defense a little bit.
- [56:18]
C
Right, right.
- [56:19]
A
Tell me about. Okay, the side that we just saw. Is there any chance at all that that could be played for the jury?
- [56:26]
B
It could be. And I mean, especially if she testifies, it could be played. The problem is that is actually something that's beneficial to her. And typically, and I know this is weird for most folks, if you make a statement as a Criminal defendant, that's in your favor, that helps you issue. It's typically not admissible. So it's a really odd law. Most people don't understand it, I don't agree with it, but that's the law. So, you know, it could depending on how she testifies, but it's not likely.
- [56:52]
A
So it's called a self serving statement. Right. And so the law says that normally that's not admitted. You know, it's, I guess the idea behind it is that if, if you want to proclaim your innocence, then you can do it under oath, subject to cross examination. Right. And so you can't just go release a statement to the media and then run in court and play that and not be subject to cross examination. But there are instances where I think certain out of court statements by defendants are I think wrongfully withheld by prosecutors because maybe they're just in response to, maybe the police are questioning her and she says, I didn't do it, I'm innocent. But then, you know, they're not allowed to play that for the same reason. But I agree that you can't just go and manufacture something, something like that in a self serving way. So let's go ahead and let's remind everyone of what Vinnie Politin, the lead anchor at Court TV told us about this Walk the dog letter. He's locked up pre trial, right. And there's one of these random searches of her cell and in a book
- [58:01]
C
they find an envelope that is, I
- [58:04]
A
don't, I'm not sure if it was
- [58:05]
C
sealed or not, but it was addressed to her lawyer.
- [58:07]
A
Lawyer, but it was her writings. They go through it and they find this walk the dog letter.
- [58:13]
C
And the letter is actually not to
- [58:16]
A
her attorney or who is now her former attorney, probably because of this. It's a letter to her mother to talk to her brother and she wants in.
- [58:27]
C
In the letter, she's directing her brother and giving him almost like lines to tell investigators that the victim, her husband, who was poisoned with fentanyl, was down in Mexico trying to buy fentanyl and had talked to him about it, trying
- [58:45]
A
to set up a story that her husband died of an overdose.
- [58:48]
C
But it was a self induced overdose,
- [58:50]
A
not the poisoning of his Moscow Mule or orange juice, whatever it was that he was drinking that night. And it looks really bad now, like we said, said she has this book that she wrote.
- [59:02]
C
So the, the defense or the story
- [59:04]
A
behind this letter is this isn't a letter.
- [59:07]
C
This is, this is like a treatment on another book.
- [59:10]
A
I'm gonna Write like she's this prolific author. She's not a prolific author, Eric.
- [59:16]
C
Her husband met her when she was
- [59:17]
A
working at Home Depot and he was picking up supplies for his construction company.
- [59:22]
C
She's not an author.
- [59:24]
A
All right, Ashley. So Vinnie does such a good job of explaining that I asked that that be included because he can say it. Look, you know, so look, this is going to be a humdinger of a trial we're going to have. And that's an actual legal phrase, by the way. We're going to have a lot to. To sort of go back and forth on. And so what about, you know, this letter that was found in. In her cell when they did a search of it, where it looks to be like she's maybe manufacturing a defense, I think think, especially if she testifies and maybe even if she doesn't. Actually, I think that that might come in because as soon as her counsel opens the door by presenting this. This defense, I think that I think that can come in.
- [60:12]
B
Right. The state's definitely going to try and bring it in. And that's. That's a strategy decision for the defense attorney. If they do bring it in, do you want to put your client up to explain it? Because that's the only real way to explain it. And I would be curious what her explanation is and how good it would sound on the state stand. It's a hard decision whether or not to put a client on the stand. I always, you know, I've said it before on this show. I always tend to want to put a client on the stand if I can and have them explain it. But she better have a good explanation for that.
- [60:36]
A
Absolutely. All right, we gotta leave it there for Richens. But we will, as I said, we will be covering Richens in depth here at MK True Crime. Now it's time for our closing argument. And Ashley, I have been waiting all day to hear what you have to say. So. So let's see. What's your closing for today?
- [60:57]
B
I bet you're wondering what topic I'm talking about. So I'm actually not talking about the law necessarily, a little bit about it, but we talked about genetics and we talked about DNA. And so I really wanted to talk about this issue that I think we're going to see litigated time and time again, whether or not the government can actually access our DNA on places like Ancestry.com. let me just be clear about this. Your DNA is not your email address. You can change your email address. You cannot change your genetic code. Companies like Ancestry Collect Your DNA. And they're not just holding data. What they're holding is your health history, your biological blueprint, your health predispositions, your ancestry, your relatives, even people that never consented to share your genes. If that data is breached, sold, misused or subpoenaed into some massive government data, you don't get to take it back, you don't get to reset it, you don't get to change your password, you don't get to get a new chromosome, something like that. The government will have it and they will have it forever. There's a reason that people don't trust the government with DNA history. Governments have not exactly earned blind faith when it comes to surveillance, data retention and missions. Today it's just for violent crime. Today it's just to help find a missing woman that we all want to find. Tomorrow it's for broader searches, it's predictive policing. If the database exists, there's always going to be that temptation to use it, to expand its use. It's not paranoia, it's power dynamics. The government should not have our DNA. DNA is permanent, it's familial, it's incredibly sensitive. Companies are going to protect it and protect it aggressively, and they should. And citizens have a right to demand strict limits on government access to their DNA. Once that genie is out of the bottle, you can never get it back in. Once the government has access to your DNA, they can never get it back in. And I know that's not a popular position because we want to solve crimes and we want to find 84 year old women that are missing. But you've got to remember the base of this. You've got to remember this is your DNA, this is your data and we've got to protect it. So that's my rant for today.
- [63:07]
A
Well, I think that's, I think that's about the law, I mean, because I think that that's very relevant to criminal cases. I mean, look, you and I, we've sort of grown up as lawyers in the last couple of decades and we've seen major strides and advances in DNA. And I think this is the next iteration of that. And the next generation of lawyers is this is all just going to be part and parcel of how they try cases and how law enforcement investigates cases moving forward. So thank you very much for it
- [63:34]
B
is it's come so far. I mean, and one thing I, you know, I wanted to make mentioned, I wanted to go on a rant about it, but I really didn't think it was a good Rant. As you know, I even have DNA my dogs. And, you know, Indiana Jones Merchant is a proud high level of woofiness. So, you know, she's got a lot of wolf in her. I mean, this is what we're doing with this. So, you know, it can be a lot of fun, but it can also can also be very serious DNA.
- [63:56]
A
All right, well, so for my closing argument today, I'm not going to talk specifically about the Guthrie case. I'm not going to talk about the Richens case, but sort of, because we talked about these cases, particularly Richens, and it's in jury selection. I know that's been a topic covered here on earlier editions of MK True Crime. I want to talk to you about jury selection. So in the American legal system, there's jury selection. Now here in the South, Ashley, and I call it vor dire. Right now, where you live, you might call it voir dire. Right. Attorneys for both sides can remove potential jurors in essentially two ways. The lawyers can strike someone for cause if they think there's a clear reason the person can't be fair. So, for example, if the person is related by blood or marriage to, say, the defendant or the lawyer on the other side, there are things like that that can be used as excusing someone for calls. And there's also a limited number of what we call strikes or challenges that are known as peremptory challenges. This is where a lawyer can strike a juror for essentially no reason at all because they didn't like the person's tie, or they didn't like the way the person looked at them, or they just got a bad feeling. In general, there's a limited number of those in each, in a civil case or a criminal case that each side gets to get. But the problem is, for decades and decades in America, this peremptory challenge system, which we still have, it allowed for hidden types of discrimination, particularly racial discrimination in cases involving minority defendants. In 1986, though, that changed. The Supreme Court decided a case called Batson vs. Kentucky. The court ruled that peremptory challenges could not be used to exclude jurors simply because of their race. And the way this is put into practice during the jury selection, or voir dire, as we call it here in the south, the procedure is the person that or the party that wants to say that the other side has violated this rule, they make what's called a Batson challenge. And so here's how it works in three steps. Step one is the objecting attorney must make what's called a prima facie case of discrimination. This is usually by pointing out a pattern such as, you know, the other side has struck all or almost all of the potential jurors of a particular race. Right. And then step two is once that objection is lodged, the judge, if the judge agrees that there is a prima facie case, then the attorney who made the strike has to justify that strike and they have to justify it by giving what we call a race neutral reason for the character challenge. And so this is all done usually at sidebar. It's not done in the presence of the juries because a lot of times bats and challenges are made and they're not. The relief is not granted because the opposing party is able to justify using a race neutral sort of analysis why they struck that particular juror. And so that's sort of where it all happens. But if the judge decides that it's, it's to be granted, then the remedy is the juror that would have been struck, well, that person is put back on the jury. Right. And so, and that by the way, is why it's done sort of outside their presence because you don't want that person to know that the other side moved to strike them for what is arguably an impermissible reason. So that's sort of the Batson Challenge process. And so I talk about that because we're going to be talking about, about Richens, we're going to talk about other cases that we're going to be covering in depth here, live trials, live trial coverage moving forward. And so we're going to see this and with maybe something that we see. So here at MK True Crime we always try to educate where we can. So there it is. That's the Batson Challenge. That's how courts help to ensure fair trials and impartial juries. And with that we're going to have to leave it there. For this edition of MK True Crime, I want to say thanks very much to our co host, to my co host Ashley Merchant and to our guest Cece Moore. And thank you for joining us here and we will see you next time right here on MK True Crime.
- [68:25]
B
Sniffle season happens and when it does, your skin deserves comfort. That's why Kleenex lotion tissues are made with moisturizing Ingredients and offer 3 in 1 skin loving benefits helping protect, soothe and moisturize your skin. So whether you're at home, on the go or just living life, keep Kleenex lotion close for a little extra care. That makes a big difference for whatever happens next. Grab Kleenex. Department of rejected dreams. If you had a dream rejected, IKEA can make it possible. So I always dreamed of having a
- [68:56]
A
man cave, but the wife doesn't like it.
- [68:58]
B
What if I called it a woman cave?
- [69:01]
C
Okay, so let's not do that. But add some relaxing lighting and a
- [69:04]
B
comfy IKEA hofburg ottoman. And now it's a cozy retreat.
- [69:07]
A
Nice.
- [69:08]
B
A cozy retreat, man.
- [69:10]
C
Cozy retreat, sir. Okay.
- [69:13]
B
Find your big dreams, small dreams, and cozy retreat dreams in store or online at ikea.us dream the possibilities.